Rand Paul: Vote for my dad

posted at 8:44 pm on December 22, 2011 by Allahpundit

Effective. A filial endorsement is endearing, if predictable, and Rand’s already prominent enough as a national figure that his stamp of approval qualifies as a rare “mainstream” thumbs up for his pop. The message is smart, too: No policy specifics, just a promise that Ron will stick to his principles because that’s what he’s been doing for 50 years. True enough; whatever his other faults, the fear that President Paul would “evolve” in office is absolute zero. Quite a contrast with the likely nominee.

They’re going for the Iowa tea-party vote here, I take it, but I don’t know how helpful Rand or anyone else will be on that count. It’s received wisdom in the media that Ron is a godfather of the movement because he was way ahead of the curve politically on spending, but that’s simplistic. ABC notes that tea partiers are more likely to support “peace through strength” than other Republicans are and support maintaining military spending at its current levels to the tune of 60 percent. In their latest joint poll with WaPo, they asked “tea-party supporters” a bunch of different questions related to the campaign, including which Republican candidate is “most likely to agree with you on the issues that matter most to you.” That’s tailor-made for Ron Paul, and yet:

Fifth place among tea partiers, half the total that Bachmann got. Compare and contrast with how he fared among Republicans who are “tea-party neutral.” If anything, I think Rand might help him with the latter group more than with the tea party. Low-information primary voters who know him from his endless cable news appearances might recognize him and pay Ron a little extra attention because of it.

Incidentally, Reuters is now covering Ron’s old newsletters with a special focus on the “race war” passages. Sample quote: “When asked whether that meant Paul believed there was a government conspiracy to cover up the impact of AIDS, [Paul Iowa chair Drew] Ivers said, ‘I don’t think he embraces that.’” Whew! Can’t imagine that Rand, whose career is blooming, wants to have to deal with questions about this either, but maybe he thinks it’s a price worth paying as Ron piles up delegates and maybe blazes a path for him in 2016. Exit question: What if Ron decides to run third party? Does Rand endorse?

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

From what I’ve heard of the son he has my support, but the father is nuts. It’s understandable obligatory for the son to support the father so I’m not holding it against him, but the father is nuts. If the son runs for President in the future I’ll sincerely consider him among the candidates, but the father is nuts. I still haven’t decided whom to support, but the father is nuts. I’m only certain who I won’t support, but the father is nuts.

Sorry Rand, but hate isn’t the platform the GOP should run on this election cycle. That might have been the cat’s meow of a campaign theme back in the 1930s, but times have changed. Ol’ Bossman Paul isn’t the man to lead the fight.

You’re doing a very poor job of it. Interventionism is not solely about wars and getting involved in wars in which we were not attacked and not under threat of attack, it’s about being involved in foreign entanglements. Our CIA-led coup against Iran’s constitutional monarch is an example of interventionism.

Dante on December 23, 2011 at 8:32 AM

If you were using interventionism to actually refer to intervention, rather than to refer to wars Ron Paul doesn’t like, then US foreign policy hasn’t been non-interventionist since, at latest, 1823 when the United States adopted the Monroe Doctrine stating that it would intervene to prevent the re-imposition of colonial rule in any part of the Americas that had become independent. More accurately, however, the United States was already embroiled in political debates about intervention in the 1790s, when an Anglophile faction led by John Adams viewed the French Revolution with distrust and wanted to support Britain and a Francophile faction led by Thomas Jefferson took the side of France in its wars to spread the Revolution. The presidency of John Adams proceeded to aid Britain by initiating a naval ‘Quasi-War’ against France (and passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to quell domestic dissent). By the time Jefferson became president in 1801 he had soured on Napoleonic France, and as president charted a more neutral course than he had earlier advocated, but his successor, James Madison, did lead the United States into war against Britain when Napoleonic France seemed ascendant in 1812. Of course, Napoleon’s fortunes quickly reversed, and we were fortunate to make a peace that restored the status quo ante bellum (after our attempt to conquer Canada failed, our ports blockaded, and our capital raided). There has never been an American tradition of non-interventionist foreign policy, regardless of the historical delusions of Ron Paul and is supporters.

Come on America, save our country and vote for a srtrong leader. Governor Perry has been the 800 pound political gorilla since he even thought about getting in – because of PROVEN CONSERVATIVE GOVERNANCE, the Texas record on jobs, and his electoral success (i.e. never lost one).
I pray that Governor Perry will fight his way back into this with a good showing in Iowa – that the field will thin out – and that with four or so podiums instead of 8 he will look much more credible as a POTUS.
A good man. A great American. Goodspeed, Governor Perry.